Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
I am following you up to this bit:
God choose to impregnate a virgin for Jesus’ birth so that there would be no misunderstanding as to who the father is.
As far as was generally known He was Jesus ben Joseph, son of Jacob. His birth by a virgin was kept secret, as Mary was soon married to Joseph.
Because there was no human father, there was no sin nature. He was the same as Adam before the fall. He was born sinless and had free will like Adam.
Is it your assertion that the sinful nature is only passed through the father? That the sinful nature of the mother (that she received from her father) is *not* passed on to the child?
That is different, and interesting. I will have to ponder that a while...
Unlike Adam, He choose to obey His Father. This is why Paul stated in Romans 5 and 6, (paraphrasing); “As by one man, Adam, all sin came into the world, by one man, Jesus, it was conquered.
You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?
That bit relies upon the 'sins of the father' part... which I still stew upon...
We can live a less sinful life as Christians because we are no longer bound by the sin nature. It is now our free will when we sin.”
Whether true or not, it is incidental. Any sin, free will or not, dooms us. It is the Blood of the Lamb that covers our sin. Many a Christian has also wound up in unbelief, What does that do to this construct?
The somewhat juxtaposed point I might speculate upon is that the unsaved sinner, still under the sinful nature, I suppose, is not under free will, then? What of those sinners before the cross? Was there no free will involved there?
For the courts of Heaven to be satisfied, Jesus had to be exactly like pre fall Adam.
I am unsure of where you get this thought... The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).
As you can plainly see, there was only one reason for a virgin birth.
I don't see it quite as plainly as you suspect. I will await your clarification.
Your position (if I have it right) is a stronger one than mine, as it explains how Christ's own body might be a sinless vessel, wherein mine supposes Christ conquering sin from within the corrupting influence of a sinful nature. Yours would be a more comfortable fit for an Holy Deity.
Yet my position still has weight in the obvious fact that Christ's human body was still corruptible. He did in fact die, and death is part and parcel with the original sin. On the surface of it, that would indicate Christ being born into the curse, and succeeding in spite of it.
I am not being flippant here. You bring up an interesting theory, and the mechanics of Christ's deity interacting with His human form are largely unknown. I will have to stand on the evidence though, until some other means is revealed:
If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.
All the talk about Mary being sinless and/or her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with God’s plan working and takes away from who we should be focused on.
On that we are in complete agreement.
Lifting Mary above other human beings is not the same as “deifying” Her. She is not a part of the Godhead, but she is above others in the Body of Christ. Those who actually “deify” Her are heretics.
PLEASE ping me to any update on Your neice.
Lord, Jesus, for Today’s Grace,
Today’s Blood covering;
Today’s wholeness;
Today’s provision;
Today;s Peace—Your peace like a river;
Today’s Joy in You;
Today’s Holy Spirit Comfort;
Today’s understanding;
Today’s Intimacy with You and others;
Today’s Forgiveness;
Today’s Hope;
Today’s Wisdom;
Today’s Kindness;
Today’s touch from You . . . & from ‘You with skin on.’
Today’s Word;
Today’s Growth in You;
Today’s next step WITH You;
Today’s discipline in thought and deed;
Today’s letting go of things that hinder;
Today’s focus on the supreme priority of You and You alone;
Today’s maturity;
Today’s pleasure in knowing You;
Today’s Spirit-Filled choices with You, in You;
Today’s Serendipity;
Today’s Spontaneity;
Today’s Fellowship with those who love You;
Today’s Service to You and to the broken hearted even if all that’s possible for the broken mentioned is to acknowledge weakly that ‘tain’t my brother or sister but me so needy, today, Lord;
Today’s Strength in You;
Today’s Overcoming in You;
Today’s Abandonment to You;
Today’s Courage in You;
Today’s Fun in You, with You;
Today’s Abundant Life in You;
Today’s Resurrection Life in You;
Today’s Security in You;
Today’s Steadfastness in You;
Today’s Perseverance in You;
Today’s Faithfulness in You;
Today’s Deliverance in You, Through You;
Today’s Transformation(s) in You, Through You;
Today’s Soaring on wings as Eagles In You;
Today’s Identity, essence, becoming . . . IN you;
Today’s All in All In You, Lord . . .
We ask for all such things according to your Riches and Graces in Glory be imparted to JimRob; Alamo-Girl’s niece; the Don-o’s sons; MarySecretary; other Freepers and loved ones in need of healing/organs/rotor-rootered veins/arteries; tumors removed; marriages healed; jobs provided; prodigals returned to you and family love; Arthritis, bitterness, resentments removed & forgiveness extended; knees, hips and finger joints healed; . . . anguished questions answered or let-go . . .
Lord, You alone have the perfect provision for such needs. We lay them before you, trusting in your perfect Love to offer, provide your Perfect response(s) . . . by Your Stripes, Lord and in Jesus’ Precious Blood and Name.
Amen.
And the praise of that service! Everyone jumping up and down in unison singing in extraordinary harmonies... The sheer love of God upon their faces...
Even while unable to understand a single word they were saying, I felt the Spirit come down upon me, and joy filled my crusty old heart.
That service would cause many a blue haired old lady to turn up her nose with a sniff... so different, so unorthodox... Where were the Psalter Hymnals? Where where the brooding strains of reverent music? Where were the walls, for pity’s sake?
But in my heart, I know that those were some of the richest folks I have ever seen.
= = =
PRAISE GOD! INDEED!
I haven’t seen that one though I’d greatly love to. I have had many similar expxeriences. Kind of takes the starch out when one
SEES THE LORD
HIGH AND LIFTED UP AND HIS TRAIN FILLING THE TEMPLE
through such as that . . .
Kind of removes allllllll other foci
save
GOD ALONE.
PRAISE GOD! BY HIS GRACE, ALONE . . .
That has seemed to be the case as the months and years have raced by . . . though I'm sure it wasn't their plan. God often has plans . . . and for some of us . . . the road less traveled by--snowy woods or no.
Am humbled and blessed by your kind words and especially by your overcoming Biblical postings. May God's richness in all respects flood you and all your relationships and loved ones. Amen!
Actually, I can’t recall ever having as a goal . . . to disrupt any RC thread.
I suppose I could add that goal but I don’t think so. Wouldn’t be a comfortable one.
‘Tis a good thing. I suspect I could be a very good distrupter in a list of clever little ways. But I also wouldn’t want to trouble my spirit, the RM nor JimRob with such.
REALLY?
When did the latest CHRISTIANITY TODAY'S
[or is it CHRISTIANITY ILLUSRATED's]
latest Heavenly rankings come out????
I thought CHRIST rated John above all mortals and the least in the Kingdom of Heaven above John.
I didn't think Christ warranted ranking Mary, so far . . .
Last I heard, the authentic Mary was assisting angels in teaching aborted babies . . . but that's only a rumor.
I think the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature was rumored to be holding seminars on magical hankies in some fantasized matrix heaven somewhere off in the 66'th multiverse. As I say . . . only a rumor.
Those who actually “deify” Her are heretics.
So, what are the CHRISTIANITY ILLUSTRATED's stats on that . . . approximately 15-75% of RC's are heretics? WOW, possibly another impressive record broken by the RC edifice. Call Guinness.
Forgot to ping half way through doing it. I’ll wake up eventually.
Quix, once again, I thank you and I love you. You write such beautiful litanies.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to define that explicitly then, because from what I see, the terms 'co-redemptrix' and 'co-mediatrix' impose upon territory that is inarguably belonging to Christ alone.
'Co' suggests a partnership in these activities, wherein the Protestants know only one Redeemer and Mediator.
How can she be 'co', and also inferior?
Amen!
It's the discernment and practices that create the controversy.
Thanks for your kind words.
To God Be The Glory! GREAT THINGS HE has done!
Sometimes I manage to cooperate agreeably.
‘Co’ suggests a partnership in these activities, wherein the Protestants know only one Redeemer and Mediator.
How can she be ‘co’, and also inferior?
= = =
Thar ya go agin. Trying to be straight-forwardly logical.
Yatta know ain’t gunna wurk. Thay ain’t got that thar function in their opperating system.
LOL.
The issue isn't Catholic vs Protestant, the issue is works vs faith and which are you depending on for your salvation and living by.
You can't mix the two.
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain (Gal.2:21)
The RCC keeping out heresy is like the Mafia keeping down crime.
Well, that sums up the Roman Catholic hierarchically quite nicely!
Thank you for your response. I hope my answers will make my points more effective.
God choose to impregnate a virgin for Jesus’ birth so that there would be no misunderstanding as to who the father is.
As far as was generally known He was Jesus ben Joseph, son of Jacob. His birth by a virgin was kept secret, as Mary was soon married to Joseph.
That may have been true at the time but the virgin birth is one of the foundations of Christianity. It is part of the Apostle’s Creed. Jesus could not have been the begotten of the Father any other way.
Because there was no human father, there was no sin nature. He was the same as Adam before the fall. He was born sinless and had free will like Adam.
Is it your assertion that the sinful nature is only passed through the father? That the sinful nature of the mother (that she received from her father) is *not* passed on to the child?
That is different, and interesting. I will have to ponder that a while...
That is how I have been led to believe the scripture I posted from Leviticus. I.E. I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and forth generation of them that hate me.
God does not say the iniquities of the mothers, only the fathers. While searching for more such scripture I was reminded by some of the scriptures I read that the fall did not happen when Eve tasted the fruit. It happened when Adam did. By one man’s sin, Adam, sin entered the world.
Unlike Adam, He choose to obey His Father. This is why Paul stated in Romans 5 and 6, (paraphrasing); “As by one man, Adam, all sin came into the world, by one man, Jesus, it was conquered.
You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?
That bit relies upon the ‘sins of the father’ part... which I still stew upon...
The sin’s of the fathers part makes it all possible. Fallen man has more than an impetus to sin, he has no choice but to sin. Christ was like pre fall Adam with free will, he could obey God or Satan. He chose God and broke the bonds of sin for all.
We can live a less sinful life as Christians because we are no longer bound by the sin nature. It is now our free will when we sin.”
Whether true or not, it is incidental. Any sin, free will or not, dooms us. It is the Blood of the Lamb that covers our sin. Many a Christian has also wound up in unbelief, What does that do to this construct?
What you say is true about the Blood of the Lamb. It has already covered our sins past and future. My point is the future ones. I know God has forgotten my sins but I sometimes wonder how many lashes Jesus took for me. How many were for my future sins that could have been avoided because I am free not to sin.
The somewhat juxtaposed point I might speculate upon is that the unsaved sinner, still under the sinful nature, I suppose, is not under free will, then? What of those sinners before the cross? Was there no free will involved there?
The free will was over powered by the sin nature. No one could gain heaven on there own. That is why God sent Jesus.
For the courts of Heaven to be satisfied, Jesus had to be exactly like pre fall Adam.
I am unsure of where you get this thought... The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).
The sinless life of Christ was the deal maker not breaker. My point is that the Courts of Heaven had to have apples for apples. Adam lost salvation for man. Christ had to be exactly like Adam to make what He did legal. He had to be capable of the same failings or the contest would not have been fair and/or legal. When He was tempted by Satan, He had to be just as able as Adam to capitulate or it was meaningless.
Prophecy had to be fulfilled to prove who He was, for the most part.
As you can plainly see, there was only one reason for a virgin birth.
I don’t see it quite as plainly as you suspect. I will await your clarification.
Did my answers help or hinder?
Your position (if I have it right) is a stronger one than mine, as it explains how Christ’s own body might be a sinless vessel, wherein mine supposes Christ conquering sin from within the corrupting influence of a sinful nature. Yours would be a more comfortable fit for an Holy Deity.
Yet my position still has weight in the obvious fact that Christ’s human body was still corruptible. He did in fact die, and death is part and parcel with the original sin. On the surface of it, that would indicate Christ being born into the curse, and succeeding in spite of it.
I am not being flippant here. You bring up an interesting theory, and the mechanics of Christ’s deity interacting with His human form are largely unknown. I will have to stand on the evidence though, until some other means is revealed:
If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.
You are forgetting one thing. Christ died by choice. Father, Your will be done. He sweat blood just thinking about being separated from the Father. This makes it even more (What ever superlative you want to insert here.) what he did for us.
He had to die while innocent to payoff that part of the curse for us. The death also allowed Him to be resurrected to fulfill Prophecy and to assure us the Father would do the same for us.
All the talk about Mary being sinless and/or her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with God’s plan working and takes away from who we should be focused on.
On that we are in complete agreement.
I find it interesting that you are the only one to comment on my post. I thank you again and I hope I answered some of your concerns. BVB
Roamer_1 and all. I apologize for the post appearing to run together. When I created it, my original post was in italics from roamer_1. Roamer_1’s answers and questions were in normal type. I thought I answered in bold to separate my responses. It did not post that way.
I will make sure that happens on future posts. BVB
Certainly I strongly agree.
Thanks for your kind posts.
Much appreciate your contributions to such threads.
These heresies have come back and have grown roots again due to the reformation,like the previous example I gave you on those groups again denying Divinity of Christ-the Mormons Jw’s etc.
They don't effect the Catholic Church because they have already been dealt with and condemned.
roamer-””But what is less easy to determine from within the RCC, and I am treading lightly here my FRiend, are those heresies which may have taken root””
Whatever you think has taken root,if it were an actual heresey,it grew outside of the Church,not from the Church's teachings.My guess is that what you call a heresy is based on your OWN interpretation of scripture
roamer-””But what force is there within the RCC that can really do so? Fifteen hundred years of being insistently inerrant, an hierarchical structure with little in the way of checks and balances””
The Catholic Church has concrete dogmatic teaching on Faith and Morals,thus there is no need for checks and balances. An example would be on abortion -we can trace the Church's condemnation of abortion back to the first century written in the Didache and others throughout the centuries
From the Didiache
“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19
roamer-””I will contend that statement. By and large, the lion's share of Protestantism is pretty much on the same page.””
I think many of them started that way in the beginning,but as you pointed out the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, I would say other mainline protestant churches will continue along this path because of the lack of understanding of TRUE freedom and lack of putting concrete limits for the sake of financially being able to survive.
This is the end result of a plauarlistic society
The false idea that freedom is the right to do whatever “I” please has thus lead to a pluralistic world of materialism,sexual immoralities,self fulfillment etc ... you name it , its all here!
All this is done in the name of freedom and protected in the name of democracy
This is not True Freedom,Dear Brother!
True freedom means being FREE FROM ERROR,thus being free from materialism,sexual immoralites, self fulfillment etc
“The Truth shall set you free”
The Catholic Church has taught True freedom from the very beginning and reinforced this through her Dogmatic constitutions through the ages.Sadly many within the Church don't follow those teaching,but those teachings CANNOT ever change because they are dogmatic,thus guided by the Holy Spirit
Roamer said “”I am adamantly against their doctrine of infant baptism””
The early Christians Baptized Infants,Dear Brother.
look.....
“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).
For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).
“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).
“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
“It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.” Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).
“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).
“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).
“’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).
“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).
It is also scriptural
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children's faith.
I have enjoyed conversing with you.
I wish you and your family a Blessed evening
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.